Re: [BP] Signaling Comparison Spreadsheet Input
Adam Healey said:
> Please find below some suggestions for the signaling comparison spreadsheet that I am forwarding on behalf of my colleagues at Agere Systems. This is not to be interpreted as a position of the Task Force Chair.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Crosstalk Aggressors:
>
> * Type: Deterministic | Random
> * Peak Alignment: Eye Center | Transition | (Other?), Note: does not apply to Type = Random
> * Scale Factor: (Aggressor Amplitude)/(Launch Amplitude)
>
>
>
> It is preferred that the group agree to one or another to reduce the number of simulations that we need to do. For the basis of comparison, either one seems acceptable. However, if the group cannot come to agreement on this, the underlying assumption should be stated.
>
>
(stuff omitted)
>
>
> “Stressed” BER
>
>
>
> The “deep” BER contours (1E-12/15/18) typically require some analytic method to derive. The choice of method may influence the actual margin observed. Also, there had been earlier discussions regarding scaling crosstalk. This is probe to determine the interest, if any, in introducing new performance metric that might yield better correlation than the more analytical techniques. This involves scaling the crosstalk to a level that yields a BER high enough to actually estimate via error counting. This would be several points on a curve with a bottom at 1E-6 to 1E-7 and various scale factors of k. This is similar to the Moore proposal, but rather than using a sinusoidal interferer, it uses scaled actual crosstalk data. At the very least, it would be sanity check of the various analytical methods and would build confidence in the reported margins.
>
>
Comment on Cross talk Aggressors:
Peak Alignment is hard to define since typical crosstalk pulse
responses show several output pulses with odd timing between them.
Which one would be used to define alignment?
As far as your "probe to determine the interest, if any, in . . .
new performance metric," I will of course be interested. I think
that sine waves are easier to work with and more repeatable than data,
and any loss in realism is minor but i would support using data if it
generates more support.
charles
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Charles Moore
| Agilent Technologies
| ASIC Products Division
| charles_moore@agilent.com
| (970) 288-4561
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|